Academic discourse differs from popular discourse in terms of having separate vast discourse communities. A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals. John Swales defined discourse communities as "groups that have goals or purposes, and use communication to achieve these goals."
Academic discourse refers to the ways of thinking and using language which exist
Popular discourse refers to Various levels of difference can be noted between the two, such as analyzing the rhetorical anatomy of each discourse within its discourse community. Below is the discourse analysis, a broad term for the study of the ways in which language …show more content…
Aaron Carroll, a professor from Indiana University School of Medicine. His language is casual-like. He talks to his readers in a friendly yet attention grabbing tone by saying in his first sentence, “It is becoming easier to get marijuana, legally.” He states this because over the years, marijuana use has been considered illegal until in some places it was deemed legal. This is an attention-grabbing statement because it is still a major controversy. Mr. Carroll then talks about the test subjects subtly, he states that they did play key roles in the discovery of the good use of marijuana because they were a part of the trials that proved marijuana could be used for medical purposes to help with medical issues. He states, “They found 79 trials involving more than 6,400 participants. A lot of the trials did show some improvements in symptoms, but most of those did not achieve statistical significance. Some did, however.” In contrast, the language by the scientist in the scientific report is technical and obviously used to give information about the experiments and marijuana. The scientist start off by providing a few definitions, “Cannabis is a generic term used for drugs produced from plants belonging to the genus Cannabis……Medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate …show more content…
Mr. Carroll writes, “Let’s be frank: There’s just no way…” His choice of words are used in a way to express to his audience in a ‘yeah this might be true, but then again what if it’s not’ way. In contrast, the scientists state, “RCTs were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.” This shows that their vocabulary is more vast and advanced than the scholarly article. They know they are talking about. They’ve included an abbreviation without its meaning and it’s something only they understand. “A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (Swales 221). The scientists are able to speak to each other and other scientist in ways a non-scientist wouldn’t understand because they belong to the same discourse community. Members all have their own ways of talking to each other. In other words, for example, they have their own language (Swales 221). Contrasting both pieces, you can see that he language for one is incoherent to others because they are not a part of the same discourse. Use of a different lexis, is important because the intended audiences they are trying to convey to is presumed to already know what they are talking about. The reason the language is so different in each piece is because each has specific audiences they need to
Academic discourse refers to the ways of thinking and using language which exist
Popular discourse refers to Various levels of difference can be noted between the two, such as analyzing the rhetorical anatomy of each discourse within its discourse community. Below is the discourse analysis, a broad term for the study of the ways in which language …show more content…
Aaron Carroll, a professor from Indiana University School of Medicine. His language is casual-like. He talks to his readers in a friendly yet attention grabbing tone by saying in his first sentence, “It is becoming easier to get marijuana, legally.” He states this because over the years, marijuana use has been considered illegal until in some places it was deemed legal. This is an attention-grabbing statement because it is still a major controversy. Mr. Carroll then talks about the test subjects subtly, he states that they did play key roles in the discovery of the good use of marijuana because they were a part of the trials that proved marijuana could be used for medical purposes to help with medical issues. He states, “They found 79 trials involving more than 6,400 participants. A lot of the trials did show some improvements in symptoms, but most of those did not achieve statistical significance. Some did, however.” In contrast, the language by the scientist in the scientific report is technical and obviously used to give information about the experiments and marijuana. The scientist start off by providing a few definitions, “Cannabis is a generic term used for drugs produced from plants belonging to the genus Cannabis……Medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate …show more content…
Mr. Carroll writes, “Let’s be frank: There’s just no way…” His choice of words are used in a way to express to his audience in a ‘yeah this might be true, but then again what if it’s not’ way. In contrast, the scientists state, “RCTs were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.” This shows that their vocabulary is more vast and advanced than the scholarly article. They know they are talking about. They’ve included an abbreviation without its meaning and it’s something only they understand. “A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (Swales 221). The scientists are able to speak to each other and other scientist in ways a non-scientist wouldn’t understand because they belong to the same discourse community. Members all have their own ways of talking to each other. In other words, for example, they have their own language (Swales 221). Contrasting both pieces, you can see that he language for one is incoherent to others because they are not a part of the same discourse. Use of a different lexis, is important because the intended audiences they are trying to convey to is presumed to already know what they are talking about. The reason the language is so different in each piece is because each has specific audiences they need to